Selection grade pay scale in the District Judge cadre cannot be withheld without authority under service rules or valid instructions.

The selection grade for District Judges was treated as an extended pay scale within the ordinary cadre, not as a separate promotional post. Administrative posting arrangements for inspection work did not change that character, and the grade could not be withheld merely because the appellant was not found fit for such posting. In the absence of any rule, statutory provision, or valid executive instruction authorising denial, the appellant was entitled to the selection grade from the date his immediate junior began drawing it, with consequential relief.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant was entitled to the selection grade pay scale of District Judges from the date his immediate junior began to draw that scale.

Analysis: The selection grade for District Judges was treated as only an extended pay scale forming part of the ordinary District Judge scale, and not as a separate promotional cadre. The creation of posts for inspection work did not alter the character of the selection grade, nor did posting a District Judge as an Inspecting District Judge make that post equivalent to selection grade. Since no rule, statutory provision, or executive instruction authorized withholding the selection grade once it became due according to seniority and continuous officiation, the High Court could not deny it merely on the footing that the appellant was not found fit for such posting.

Conclusion: The appellant was held entitled to the selection grade pay scale from the date his immediate junior commenced to draw it, together with consequential reliefs.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a selection grade is only an extended pay scale and not a separate promotional post, it must be granted in accordance with the governing service rules and seniority, and cannot be withheld by administrative discretion in the absence of authority under law, rules, or valid executive instructions.

---